Training:Tractography.Validation - Revision history

Melonakos at 16:42, 8 February 2010

2010-02-08T16:42:25Z

Melonakos at 14:47, 30 July 2007

2007-07-30T14:47:28Z

RandyGollub at 03:07, 12 July 2007

2007-07-12T03:07:06Z

RandyGollub at 02:41, 12 July 2007

2007-07-12T02:41:11Z

RandyGollub at 02:40, 12 July 2007

2007-07-12T02:40:11Z

Tannenba at 20:57, 1 June 2007

2007-06-01T20:57:16Z

RandyGollub at 16:38, 1 June 2007

2007-06-01T16:38:31Z

RandyGollub at 15:40, 1 June 2007

2007-06-01T15:40:35Z

RandyGollub at 15:36, 1 June 2007

2007-06-01T15:36:41Z

RandyGollub at 15:24, 1 June 2007

2007-06-01T15:24:19Z

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 # To make the dataset and our analyzed results available to the scientific community
 # To use our findings to begin to establish benchmarking methods for the NAMIC toolkit.
 <br />
-<br /> Back to [[Training:Main|Training:Main]]
+<br /> Back to [[Training|Training Main Page]]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 # POI tool (Bruce Fischl/Dennis Jen)
 # Volumetric connectivity (Ross Whitaker/Tom Fletcher)
-# Finsler (Allen Tannenbaum/John Melonakos)
+# Geodesic Active Contours for Fiber Tractography and Fiber Bundle Segmentation (Allen Tannenbaum/John Melonakos)
 # Medinrea (PF Filliard)
 # GTRACT (Vince Magnotta)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 12 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	This page left for historical purposes. Management of this project has moved to Diffusion Tractography Project ~~page~~ and see also [[SanteFe.Tractography.Conference\| Sante Fe Conference page]]	+	This page left for historical purposes. Management of this project has moved to [[Projects/Diffusion/2007_Project_Week_Contrasting_Tractography_Measures \| Contrasting Tractography Project Page]] and see also [[SanteFe.Tractography.Conference\| Sante Fe Conference page]]

	A new initiative has begun in response to a shared vision among Cores 1, 3 and 5 that the field of medical image analysis would be well served by work in the area of validation, calibration and assessment of reliability. This vision was also articulated by our External Advisory Committee (add link) who recommended that this work be added to the NAMIC mission. A thorough and lively discussion of this topic was held during the 2006 All Hands Meeting (add link). Discussions have continued among our participants since then and as a result a plan for the initial work on this front has been articulated. This page will serve as the coordinating site for this effort which we expect to evolve with time.		A new initiative has begun in response to a shared vision among Cores 1, 3 and 5 that the field of medical image analysis would be well served by work in the area of validation, calibration and assessment of reliability. This vision was also articulated by our External Advisory Committee (add link) who recommended that this work be added to the NAMIC mission. A thorough and lively discussion of this topic was held during the 2006 All Hands Meeting (add link). Discussions have continued among our participants since then and as a result a plan for the initial work on this front has been articulated. This page will serve as the coordinating site for this effort which we expect to evolve with time.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:41, 12 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	This page left for historical purposes. Management of this project has moved to Diffusion Tractography Project page and see also Sante Fe Conference page	+	This page left for historical purposes. Management of this project has moved to Diffusion Tractography Project page and see also [[SanteFe.Tractography.Conference\| Sante Fe Conference page]]

	A new initiative has begun in response to a shared vision among Cores 1, 3 and 5 that the field of medical image analysis would be well served by work in the area of validation, calibration and assessment of reliability. This vision was also articulated by our External Advisory Committee (add link) who recommended that this work be added to the NAMIC mission. A thorough and lively discussion of this topic was held during the 2006 All Hands Meeting (add link). Discussions have continued among our participants since then and as a result a plan for the initial work on this front has been articulated. This page will serve as the coordinating site for this effort which we expect to evolve with time.		A new initiative has begun in response to a shared vision among Cores 1, 3 and 5 that the field of medical image analysis would be well served by work in the area of validation, calibration and assessment of reliability. This vision was also articulated by our External Advisory Committee (add link) who recommended that this work be added to the NAMIC mission. A thorough and lively discussion of this topic was held during the 2006 All Hands Meeting (add link). Discussions have continued among our participants since then and as a result a plan for the initial work on this front has been articulated. This page will serve as the coordinating site for this effort which we expect to evolve with time.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 A new initiative has begun in response to a shared vision among Cores 1, 3 and 5 that the field of medical image analysis would be well served by work in the area of validation, calibration and assessment of reliability.  This vision was also articulated by our External Advisory Committee (add link) who recommended that this work be added to the NAMIC mission.  A thorough and lively discussion of this topic was held during the 2006 All Hands Meeting (add link).  Discussions have continued among our participants since then and as a result a plan for the initial work on this front has been articulated.  This page will serve as the coordinating site for this effort which we expect to evolve with time.
@@ Line 47: / Line 49: @@
 <br />
 <br /> Back to [[Training:Main|Training:Main]]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 # POI tool (Bruce Fischl/Dennis Jen)
 # Volumetric connectivity (Ross Whitaker/Tom Fletcher)
-# Fisler (Allen Tannenbaum/John Melonakos)
+# Finsler (Allen Tannenbaum/John Melonakos)
 # Medinrea (PF Filliard)
 # GTRACT (Vince Magnotta)
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 * We will then hold a 2 day workshop/retreat in Santa Fe, NM.  Candidate dates are 2 days during the week of Oct
--5.  That window avoids MCCAI, BIRN, SFN, New Mexico's ballonfest, and the Jewish High Holidays.  Please let us know immediately if that week is a NO GO for your group.
+-5.  That window avoids MICCAI, BIRN, SFN, New Mexico's ballonfest, and the Jewish High Holidays.  Please let us know immediately if that week is a NO GO for your group.
 * The workshop/retreat will include a presentation from each group of their results AND a recommendation for how to statstically compare and quantify similarities and differences within and across tools.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 * Metrics to be collected need to be finalized by this group, but suggestions include measure of FA along the tract, size and/or volume of tract, spatial localization of tract, measure of connectivity.  Perhaps also some way to look at group results towards the goal of being able to make statements about differences in health and disease?  Please write in more suggestions and detailed methods here.
-* Particiipating algorithms (and tester) include:
+* Participating algorithms (and tester) include:
 # fiber tracking the UNC way (Guido Gerig or his designee)
 # Slicer tract tool (Ron Kikinis to designate)
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 * The outcome of the workshop/retreat will be a set of final agreed upon measurement metrics and method for compare and quantify similarities and differences within and across tools.  And the training of Sonia Pujol to run each of the analysis tools.
-* We will hold a follow-up workshop as part of the NAMIC 2008 AHM at which time Sonia will present her results to the broader audience and we can refine our methods for comparing and quantifying similarities and differences within and across tools.
+* We will hold a follow-up workshop as part of the NAMIC 2008 AHM at which time Sonia will present her results to the broader audience and we can refine our methods for comparing and quantifying similarities and differences within and across tools.  Sonia's presentation will include additional metrics such as user friendliness of the tool, coomputational efficiency and others that we will choose together.
 * Final goals are:
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 Please make comments and corrections to this page.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
-The answers to these questions will vary depending on the specific algorithm and its application.  The group agree that the best way to proceed was to chose one very specific example that is highly relevant to the NAMIC work to date and focus efforts on that.  The methods that arise from this can then be applied to additional areas.
+The answers to these questions will vary depending on the specific algorithm and its application.  The group agreed that the best way to proceed was to chose one very specific example that is highly relevant to the NAMIC work to date and focus efforts on that.  The methods that arise from this can then be applied to additional areas.
 We agreed to begin by studying the results obtained by applying each of the tractography tools to a single dataset and then gathering to present the results to one another and discuss how best to quantify the similarities and differences.
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 -5.  That window avoids MCCAI, BIRN, SFN, New Mexico's ballonfest, and the Jewish High Holidays.  Please let us know immediately if that week is a NO GO for your group.
-* The workshop/retreat will include a presentation from each group of their results AND a recommendation for how to statstically compare and quantify similarities and differences within and across groups.
+* The workshop/retreat will include a presentation from each group of their results AND a recommendation for how to statstically compare and quantify similarities and differences within and across tools.
 * Suggestion was made to have an outside statistics expert present to facilitate and inform the discussion.  Suggestions for who might be appropriate are welcome.
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
+Please make comments and corrections to this page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 A new initiative has begun in response to a shared vision among Cores 1, 3 and 5 that the field of medical image analysis would be well served by work in the area of validation, calibration and assessment of reliability.  This vision was also articulated by our External Advisory Committee (add link) who recommended that this work be added to the NAMIC mission.  A thorough and lively discussion of this topic was held during the 2006 All Hands Meeting (add link).  Discussions have continued among our participants since then and as a result a plan for the initial work on this front has been articulated.  This page will serve as the coordinating site for this effort which we expect to evolve with time.
-There are many outstanding questions in this domain that we agree are interesting and worth considering:
+There are many outstanding questions in this domain that we agree are interesting and worth considering such as:
-# What benchmarks should be used to assess performance of an algorithm?
+# What benchmarks should be used to assess performance of a NAMIC Toolkit algorithm?
-# How do you assess the performance of an algorithm if you have no access to the ground truth of what it is measuring?
+# How can we assess the performance of an algorithm if we have no access to the ground truth of what it is measuring (e.g. the white matter of the brain with tractography)?
+# What statistical methods are most appropriate for quanitfying and testing significance of these assessments?
 * Collaboration between Cores 1, 3 and 5.
 * Leadership by Randy Gollub, Ross Whitaker and Guido Gerig